Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Lt Col Philip Corso and his Critics by Micheal E. Salla, Ph. D from ExopoliticsInstitute Website.

Expand Messages
  • Bert ( A W RvB )
    Lt Col Philip Corso and his Critics by Micheal E. Salla, Ph. D from ExopoliticsInstitute Website. Exopolitics Journal 1:2 (January 2006)
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 10, 2008
      Lt Col Philip Corso and his Critics by Micheal E. Salla, Ph. D from
      ExopoliticsInstitute Website.

      Exopolitics Journal 1:2 (January 2006)


      In 1997, Col Philip Corso's book, The Day After Roswell, appeared and
      quickly rose into the New York Time's best seller list with his revelations
      concerning his role in a classified program to seed extraterrestrial
      technologies into the private sector. Col Corso had a distinguished career
      as a Military Intelligence officer, serving in senior positions during the
      Second World War, the Korean war, and under the Eisenhower administration.

      It was during his assignment as 'Special Assistant' to Lt General Arthur
      Trudeau, who headed Army Research and Development, that Corso became head of
      the newly established Foreign Technology Desk.

      During this assignment from 1961 to 1963, Corso claims to have regularly
      passed on to various corporations, key 'foreign technologies' that were in
      fact, extraterrestrial in origin. This led to breakthroughs in developing
      the integrated circuit, night vision technology, fiber optics, super
      tenacity fibers, lasers and other cutting edge technologies. Corso's book
      details a remarkable case; a former senior military official emerging as a
      whistleblower to reveal information about classified projects involving
      extraterrestrial vehicles (ETVs) or extraterrestrial biological entities

      Since the publication of his book, there has been much controversy between
      those believing Col Corso was blowing the whistle on classified U.S. Army
      activities involving seeding extraterrestrial technologies into private
      industry, and those believing Corso distorted his distinguished military
      service in order to assume a historical role far beyond his actual
      achievements. Those most critical of Col Corso believe that he was prone to
      embellishing his service record. Most criticism has centered around a number
      of public statements Corso made that appear to be inconsistent with what can
      be verified in public documentation.

      The most significant of Corso's claims that have been subjected to intense
      criticism are that:

      1. he served as a staff member of President Eisenhower's National
      Security Council

      2. he was head of the Foreign Technology Desk at the Army Research and
      Development for two years

      3. he disseminated extraterrestrial technologies to private industry

      4. he witnessed an extraterrestrial biological entity (EBE) being
      shipped overland from Roswell Army Air Force Base to Wright-Patterson Air
      Force base

      Further criticisms include Corso's claim


      to having been associated with a covert control group created to
      oversee the UFO phenomenon, MJ-12

      to have served as commander of White Sands Missile range

      to have concocted an alleged confrontation with the CIA's director of
      covert operations

      to have been promoted to full Colonel upon retirement

      I will discuss each of these criticisms in order to assess their:



      damage to Corso's credibility as a whistleblower

      discrepancies with available documentation

      impact on his central claim of having been part of a highly classified
      effort by the U.S. Army to seed civilian industries with extraterrestrial

      Corso's credibility as a distinguished military officer coming forward to
      reveal his role in such a classified program shortly before his death, is at
      the center of the debate of whether his claims are valid or not.

      Col Corso's claims placed a number of veteran researchers of the UFO
      phenomenon in the uncomfortable position of dismissing the testimony of a
      highly decorated officer. Documentation does put him in places and positions
      where the events he claims to have witnessed could have occurred as he
      described. Nevertheless, there have been some inconsistencies found in what
      Col Corso claimed and what can be documented. This has lead to intense
      debate between those who consider these inconsistencies to be minor, and
      those believing the inconsistencies to be sufficiently significant to
      warrant dismissing Corso's credibility and testimony entirely.

      Some of Corso's critics have gone as far as publicly dismissing Col Corso as
      a fraud and 'literary hoaxer'.1 Corso's strongest critics include veteran
      UFO researchers such Stanton Friedman, Dr Kevin Randle and Brad Sparks who
      collectively have expressed their skepticism. Many of the criticisms made
      against Corso cross the Rubicon dividing objective criticism and outright
      debunking. This invites speculation of the motivations of Corso's critics
      who undertake such a concerted debunking effort against a highly decorated
      military whistleblower whose revelations do much to clarify the UFO

      Files on Col Corso gained through FOIA include his service record and a
      declassified FBI report.2 To assist my evaluation I use statements from an
      Italian version of Col Philip Corso's original notes that were published in
      Italy as L'Alba di una Nuova Era [Dawn of a New Age].3 These notes have not
      been published in English. They comprise Corso's raw beliefs on a number of
      UFO issues prior to his collaboration with co-writer William Birnes in The
      Day After Roswell.

      I examine each of the most significant criticisms raised against Col Corso's
      credibility as a whistleblower, and assess whether Corso's critics cross the
      line between objective criticism and debunking. First I will describe the
      difference between objective criticism and debunking to establish some
      guideline for determining when Corso's critics cross the Rubicon and become


      The above three critics of Lt Col Philip Corso has willfully hampered an
      objective examination of Corso's substantive views concerning his role in
      disseminating UFOs information by deliberately focusing on minor details,
      inconsistencies or mistakes in his testimony.

      Furthermore, these veteran UFO researchers with collectively over 100 years
      of UFO field work experience, have deliberately ignored evidence that
      supported Corso's claims as exemplified in Thurmond preface issue. Each of
      these researchers deserves to be censored for their willful debunking of
      Philip Corso, and for the great harm they have done to his reputation, and
      to setting back UFO research for years by ignoring the important testimony
      offered by Corso.

      While seeking to cast doubt on Corso's integrity, what these critics have
      instead achieved is casting doubt on their own integrity as objective
      researchers of the UFO phenomenon.

      Corso's credentials have been well documented. All UFO researchers would
      concede he is a vitally important whistleblower, without necessarily
      accepting all his claims. Nevertheless, given the available documentation
      substantiating many of Corso's claims in terms of his career positions and
      responsibilities, there is good reason to suppose that much of his testimony
      concerning extraterrestrial technology and EBEs is based on real events.

      While there are certainly inconsistencies and mistakes in Corso's testimony,
      these largely concern details that have little to do with the substance of
      his claims that he was in charge of a covert Pentagon project to seed
      civilian industries with extraterrestrial technologies, and that he
      witnessed an EBE from the 1947 Roswell crash.

      Corso's documented background inspires confidence in the credibility of his
      testimony. In attempting to debunk Corso in an effort to discredit his
      testimony, Corso's critics deserve to be admonished for distracting UFO
      researchers from the task of identifying the truth in Col Corso's remarkable
      testimony. What remains to be done is a truly objective and impartial
      analysis of Corso's testimony, and its implications concerning a high level
      governmental cover up of UFO and EBE information.

      I look forward to collaborating with other researchers in this monumental


      Bert ( A W RvB )
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.